Ms D Yates v SMG Europe Holdings Limited — 2022

Ms D Yates was employed by SMG Europe Holdings Limited as Head of Marketing for the Bridgewater Hall and was dismissed on 25 November 2020, ostensibly by reason of redundancy. The only claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Dunlop, sitting alone, found that the dismissal was in fact by reason of redundancy within section 139(1)(b)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996 because the pandemic had caused the marketing team’s pre-Covid work of promoting live events to diminish substantially and to be replaced by a different, reduced workload connected with cancellations and rescheduling.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had identified Ms Yates for redundancy during late June or early July 2020, and that she was kept on furlough at the end of June in circumstances where Mr Bolt likely knew or suspected that redundancies were imminent. However, the tribunal held that the four-week period before the initial consultation meeting did not make the process unfair, and that the furlough decision did not of itself mean the redundancy was predetermined. It found that Ms Yates had sufficient warning and time to consult and to raise alternative proposals.

On selection, the tribunal accepted that Ms Yates could have performed much of Mr Holmes’ and Ms Higgins’ work, but held that this did not require the respondent to create a wider selection pool. It found that Mr Bolt and Ms Boss had considered pooling, but reasonably concluded that Ms Yates held a distinct senior role and could properly be placed in a pool of one. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the decision was impermissibly driven by cost alone, noting that employees in different roles, including the lowest-paid member of the marketing team, were also selected for redundancy. It further found no obligation to seek volunteers.

The consultation process was found to have been genuine and extensive, including multiple meetings, written exchanges, and consideration of Ms Yates’ proposal for an alternative structure. The tribunal held that it was reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the senior strategic functions of the Head of Marketing role could be absorbed by other roles and by Mr Bolt, and that no suitable alternative vacancy had been identified. The appeal process was also found to be reasonable, including Mr Still’s decision to speak to Mr Bolt and Mr Holmes after the appeal meeting. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and cancelled the further remedy hearing.